[2025:RJ-JP:40153] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14855/2025 1. Chhitar Mal Jat S/o Chhotu Ram Jat, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Dhanala Ki Dhani, Cheethwari, Jaipur, Rajasthan 2. Shobha Ram Jat S/o Ram Dayal Jat, Aged About 64 Years, R/o 138, Jat Mohalla, Barkheda, Alwar, Rajasthan ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Additional Chief Secretary, Department Of Finance, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Principal Secretary, Department Of Arurveda And Bhartiya Chikitsa, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. Dy. Secretary, Department Of Ayurveda And Bhartiya Chikitsa, Government of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur 4. Director Ayurveda, Directorate Of Ayurveda, Ajmer. 5. Director, Pension And Pension Welfare, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Neetu Bhansali For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, AAG assisted by Mr. Samee Khan Mr. Aaditya Godara on behalf of Ms. Mahi Yadav, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA Order 03/10/2025 1. Issue notice to respondents. [2025:RJ-JP:40153] (2 of 3) [CW-14855/2025] 2. Mr. Aaditya Godara, associate of Ms. Mahi Yadav, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1 and 5. 3. Mr. Samee Khan, associate of Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.2, 3 and 4. 4. Hence, service is complete. 5. The petitioners, who were the Ayurveda Doctors, retired on attaining at the age of superannuation of 62 years. 6. The issue regarding the age of retirement of 62 years of Allopathic Doctors came to be challenged on the ground of discrimination in age of retirement by various Ayurvedic Doctors. The issue was decided by the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13496/2021 (Dr. Mahesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) by order dated 13.07.2022. Thereafter, in light of the order passed in the case of “Dr. Mahesh Chandra Sharma” (supra), various writ petitions were allowed. 7. Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for respondent-Department does not dispute the fact that the issue involved in the instant writ petition is squarely covered by the decision rendered by Division Bench of this Court in Dr. Mahesh Chandra Sharma (supra). 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners also cited that the order dated 13.8.2025 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9910/2025 (Dr. Sukh Ram & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.); the relevant para no.6 whereof reads as under :- [2025:RJ-JP:40153] (3 of 3) [CW-14855/2025] “However, we are inclined to accept the contentions raised by learned Additional Advocate General that actual benefits are not required to be paid to the petitioners who have approached the Court after much delay. They would, therefore, be entitled to only notional benefits for the period from 60 to 62 years. Their pension however shall be notionally fixed, as if they retired at the age of 62 years by granting them notional benefits of increments, their last pay would accordingly be calculated and the pension would accordingly be revised. They would of course be entitled to the arrears of revised pension from 62 years onward. The arrears shall be calculated as directed above and released to the petitioners expeditiously preferably within a period of three months” 9. Both the counsel are in agreement that the petitioners are entitled for the same relief as granted in the case of Dr. Sukhram (supra). 10. In terms of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Reliefs would be granted to the petitioners, as granted in the case of Dr. Sukhram (supra). 11. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (RAVI CHIRANIA),J SANJAY/AMIT/7